Should the British Empire supported the CSA?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

SaparotRob said:
As someone posted here, the former royals have a kid. The child grows up and becomes President. England wins!
Way to play the long game, George III.
Click to expand...
More than likely it might be a child born to a Chinese national in the US in order to obtain NBC status and then taken back to China for about 30 years, then coming back to the US for more than 5 years. It'd be China's ultimate revenge for our participation in the Opium Wars. Those wars were how the Kerry family of Forbes's fame, or infamy, got its wealth and power.
 
Reading more about Civil War.

Lee's invasions of the North which ended up at Antietam and Gettysburg were designed to get Britain into the war. The idea that a major success would be decisive and that Britain would jump in.

I have found no info Britain would do that.
 
What I find interesting, is that the Union threatened France and Britain with war if either nation officially assisted (and/or recognized) the Confederacy.

The Union was not really in a position to threaten any world power at the time for several reasons, first of which, the military manpower of the nation was roughly split in half and deployed across a third of the continent.
Additionally, the Union Navy was tied up trying to contain Confederate ports and waterways, which it would have to abandon in an attempt to wage war elsewhere. This would allow the Confederate Navy the opportunity get to sea both to engage the Union Navy as well as allow trade to freely commence with Germany, Britain, France, Spain and other nations - the four mentioned did trade with the Confederacy, but in limited quantity as the Southern ports were blockaded.
 

Over the Trent Affair, unlikely. The UK and US had a quite a few issues, such as the border between Canada and the US, that, between two other polities, routinely ended in military action being, instead, being talked through. The Trent Affair was solved with a series of stiff notes. As an aside, the US "folded" over the Trent Affair because, within the accepted law of the sea at the time, the US was in the wrong. In the same way, the British "folded" over the Alabama claims, where the US sued the UK over damages due to violations of its own laws.

Also, the anti-slavery movement was very powerful in Britain (they had abolished slavery in 1833 and worked to stamp it out in their various imperial possessions) and the CSA was entirely about the retention (and even forced expansion) of slavery. Only post-defeat did people like Davis claim it was anything other than an attempt to maintain their slave-based economy.
 
A few lectures I have watched saying the Empire was ready to rock and roll on the side of the Confederacy as soon as Lee gets victorious in the North but I don't see it.

Let's the Yankees and the Rebs kill each other and we trade with whoever wins.

Oddly relations between USA and Empire were ok so the Empire had no axe to grind. So there was no reason to take part in any kind of military action against the Union. Especially if they buying our military gear by the boat load.
 
swampyankee said:
and the CSA was entirely about the retention (and even forced expansion) of slavery. Only post-defeat did people like Davis claim it was anything other than an attempt to maintain their slave-based economy.
Click to expand...
Problem is, several northern states were pro-slavery up until 1861 and virtually all slave ships were owned by northern ship owners, so that theory really doesn't fly.

Many have tried to discount that the war started over trade and terrify escalations, yet Senate minutes of proceedings as well as Bill passages show otherwise.
 

Right. Anyone who's done a little reading understands that the state's-rights revisionism is exactly that. The CSA constitution specifically forbade any Confederate state from banning slavery, or not honoring the slavery of another state. So much for state's rights.

And I doubt the UK would be willing to overlook that after practicing slavery patrols for three decades.

Your point about expansion is apt as well. Because of the Missouri Compromise, the South had for expansion slave territory the desert southwest, which meant that slavery was actually going to be economically inviable somewhere between Abilene and Odessa. Once you hit the High Plains, farming becomes subsistence-only, at least in that pre-mechanical irrigation period. The slave states knew they were getting crowded out, which is why they picked the fight in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus said:
The slave states knew they were getting crowded out, which is why they picked the fight in the first place.
Click to expand...
"Picked the fight"? There wouldn't have been a fight at all if northern abolitionists hadn't been dead set on preventing the spread of slavery into its "rightful" realm of all parts of the country climatically suited to plantation culture. Not an acceptable solution, of course.
Despite their moral outrage at the concept of slavery, most abolitionists would be seen as bigots by today's standards and would be aghast at today's integrated (sort of) America.
The other issues, such as states rights vs federal authority and agrarian vs industrial priorities, would probably have been worked through over time. The fight, necessary as it was, was picked by the north. Once Lincoln was elected, the die was cast. "Not my president!" (Where have we heard that before?) It was clear to all concerned that electing Lincoln would lead to schism, but that's how they voted.
 
Not to stray too far from the OP, but the emanicaption proclamation sat in Lincoln's desk for months until the Union won a decisive victory, and even then, it was aimed to free the slaves of the Southern States, not the North - that didn't happen until after the conclusion of the war.

The nucleus of the war stemmed from the Northern states trying to maintain a monopoly of cotton (and tobacco) exports to Europe via yankee shipping - the Southern States tried to export directly through direct trade and were hit with stiff terrifs unless it was brokered through northern shipping houses.

This was a hotly contested point on the Senate floor that led to fist fights amongst Senators in the last years of the 1850's - by 1860, it was past negotiating.
 
The emancipation proclamation made the war about slavery and this would have been known in Britain so a vote for the confederacy was a vote for slavery. Some I read have said this was the main focus of the declaration.

Britain may have intervened in the war if the war goes badly for the Union. But only as a political broker.

Obviously if the war is going badly for the North, and Lee is banging on the door of the White House, then Lincoln declaring war on France and British Empire is stupid.

Lincoln wanted the confederacy to be states in rebellion and not to be considered a new country.

In true reality, the only thing that could save the Confederacy was the actions of The Empire and the French. Since this did not happen then it fell. Although there doesn't seem any agreement between the Confederacy and the European powers which may have been a good idea before you declare independence. The rationale was Europe would vote for King Cotton and support the confederacy.
 
The Confederates were hobbled by the lack of industrialization and knew it had to be a quick war.
If you look at General Lee's tactics, they would be comparable to the later "Blitzkreig" tactics: fast, mobile strikes that kept the defenders off balance.
Between 1861 and 1863, the CSA was running roughshod on Union opposition and the culmination came at Gettysburg, where miscommunication and tactical errors brought the Confederacy's offensive edge to an end.
The plan of delivering an ultimatum to Lincoln was lost and the Confederacy's ability to fight an offensive war was shifted to a defensive position for the remaining two years.
 
Why didn't the confederacy do defensive war from day one?

Antietam and Gettysburg were totally avoidable.
 
I believe that due to unpopularity of the war with many Northerners, the Confederacy hoped to get the Union out of the war with a big victory and get a more pliable President in the White House in 1864.
 
The Confederacy had plenty of hopes and not enough muskets.

Problem is you fight wars with muskets and not hopes or dreams or prayers.

Ifs and maybe no way run a railroad.
 

I disagree that the north picked the fight.

If you look at the two decades leading up to the war, the push to expand slavery with the threat of secession if the slave-owners didn't get their way was essentially holding the nation's integrity hostage.

Additionally, the election of Lincoln was no act of aggression. Lincoln was on record as saying that if it saved the Union he would tolerate continued slavery. That the slave states thought otherwise, and decided to secede, shows an unwillingness for any further compromise. Of course he was against any further expansion of slaveholding states, but as noted above, that was pretty much scuppered with the Missouri Compromise anyway, as the land wasn't suitable for economical slave-based agriculture.

And finally, the first shots of the war were indeed fired by the CSA upon a Union fort.

So yes: the CSA picked the fight.
 
Freeing the slaves -- and otherwise confiscating the property-- of people actually in rebellion was permitted by the Constitution (and is the current justification for all property confiscation by police). Freeing the slaves was not within presidential powers for states not in rebellion.
 
Slavery was a part of the South.
It was everything.
Religion economy social political.
Remove slavery and you remove the South.

Also in some states had a very large black population which was almost 50% so you had a new political power and also there was genuine fear of race war. It was all going on.

When Robert E Lee took over the Army of Northern Virginia he was dismayed to find his soldiers were unwilling to dig trenches and other defensive works as doing manual labour was beneath them.
 
The Basket said:
Why didn't the British Empire support the confederacy?
What would have happened if it did?
Was Washington aware of such a prospect?
Click to expand...

In answer to your questions, obviously speculative

1) They didn't view it to be in their economic or political interest to do so: if they supported the CSA in their rebellion and it failed, they've created a potentially powerful enemy that, while unable to directly attack the UK could severely inconvenience the Empire by such things as support of Irish independence (I'm sure the Irish were still a bit chaffed about the Gorta Mor) and the Russians in the "Great Game." Even if the CSA succeeded in its rebellion, it's not unlikely that the US would continue its economic expansion and create a distinct economic, political, and military threat in a few years. Also, open support of a slavocracy, as was the CSA, would be antithetical to the near-universal anti-slavery sentiments of the UK populace and elites, so were the government to recognize the CSA it would be at risk of falling.

2) The CSA constitution wasn't all that different from the Articles of Confederation, and anyone who looks at US history can see how well that worked. Also, I'm rather sure that the USA, seeing a distinct enemy on their southern border (the CSA initiated violence, at Fort Sumter, and both CSA incursions north kidnapped people into -- not back into -- slavery) would start actively encouraging slave revolts, which the abolitionists did not do (although John Brown tried). While the north was not particularly less racist than the south, it would certainly be willing to use the south's slave population as a weapon against a class that would universally be viewed as a) traitors and b) an active threat, especially as the south is likely to send private or public quasi-military forces after slaves escaping north.

3) Washington wasn't populated by fools. Of course they were aware of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Aviation Pioneers. Glenn H. Curtiss And The Wright Brothers. The History Of Flight
Replies
1
Views
733
Gnomey
S
The Wright brothers’ patents (full text) and their low importance for aviation
Replies
3
Views
1K
Marcel
First powered aircraft in the U.S. inventory
Replies
1
Views
977
vikingBerserker
Gatling Gun Operations as Shown in the movie Gunga Din
Replies
1
Views
2K
Greg Boeser
why didn't the Wright brothers think of ailerons?
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
15K
pinehilljoe
Menu
Log in
Register